This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fawzi al-Qawuqji article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
you deleted my contribution:"On August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji threatened that, should the (U.N. partition) vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish" [1]."
your reason: "behaviour issue : wp:point ; content issue : wp:undue - Qawuqji said many things and there is no reason to focus on that one."
You have just being told:"if there is relevant and reliably sourced content, it may be entered into the article. If others claim it is WP:UNDUE because there are other points of view, then they will need to (and it should be very easy for them to) present reliable sources showing these other points of view. The article then incorporates these other sources and then all of the major points of view are then be presented. Claims that one reliable source's view is not representative without providing sources to show the existence of other views do not stand up".
It is not your first unjustified deletion, based on supposed POV. Please restore the deleted sentence, or I will have to complain about your conduct. Ykantor ( talk) 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
In: "Morris; 1948", al-Qawuqji is mentioned on pages 61, 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348. Of all those pages, "someone" has seen fit to quote (in extenso) p. 61, and only p. 61. Why? Because that is where you can find the most "belligerent" quote from Qawuqji. (..btw, the footnote is cited to an anon official from the "Jewish Agency": not necessarily an objective observer.) And even Morris´ own explanation on the background for the quote has been omitted.
(Also, the quote, from 1947, is now mention under ALA, which was formed in 1948, independently of Qawuqji. Alas, the article now gives a false impression that there is a direct link between the two: Qawuqji belligerent words, and the formation of ALA. This is simply false. ALA would have been formed, even if Qawuqji had never been born.)
There is one word for this, and that is "cherry-picking". (Or WP:UNDUE, do be more wikipedia formalistic). I would say how al-Qawuqji performed in the war would be far, far more relevant to his biography, than the above quote. But that is only partly mentioned in the article at present, and not sourced at all! Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
To Pluto: You continue to attack me personally. e.g. "Ykantor has nothing to add but will keep discussing to make lose time to everybody". I have asked you few times to stop personal attacks. This is a conduct issue and should be accordingly dealt with.
I repeat my first post:
you deleted my contribution:"On August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji threatened that, should the (U.N. partition) vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish" [1]."
You have just being told:"if there is relevant and reliably sourced content, it may be entered into the article. If others claim it is WP:UNDUE because there are other points of view, then they will need to (and it should be very easy for them to) present reliable sources showing these other points of view. The article then incorporates these other sources and then all of the major points of view are then be presented. Claims that one reliable source's view is not representative without providing sources to show the existence of other views do not stand up".
It is not your first unjustified deletion, based on supposed POV(?). Please restore the deleted sentence, or I will have to complain about you. Ykantor ( talk) 11:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Recently Pluto 'undid' an edit that indicates Qawuqji's affiliation with Nazi Germany. Pluto's comment justifying this action is factually incorrect: "he took refuge there but he didn't fight for them or lead troops for Nazis." I have added some (not,by any means all) well-sourced documentation of Qawuqi's support for Nazi wartime efforts, including his unquestionable participation in he Wehrmacht 's central agency for all issues that affected the Arab world, known as Sonderstab F, which had been established as an outcome of Wehrmacht High Command Directive No. 32, and was commanded by General der Flieger Hellmuth Felmy.
Pluto's 'undo' may have been a 'good faith' edit, insofar as he may not have much familiarity with the subject matter. We can now reach consensus, however, that al-Qawuqji's affiliation with Nazi Germany is documented, well-sourced, and incontestable. If any editor has any disagreement or doubt of this fact, then the place to bring up these doubts is this talk page. Please do not 'undo' or vandalize this page by attempting to cover-up al-Qawuqji's affiliation with WWII Germany by censoring the facts.
I realize that many editors take issue with including facts that could be mis-used by partisan purpose, e.g. discrediting all anti-Zionists by over-emphasizing the role of Naziism in the careers of some anti-Zionist fighters. This is completely understandable, and the proper way to address these concerns is to provide more well-sourced contextual information to promote NPOV. It is not permissible, however, to simply remove documentation of facts because they reflect badly on political causes that certain editors support. The priority must be to present the facts well, and then let the readers decide how they will use the information. Ronreisman ( talk) 22:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Apparently I happen to have found as well what seems to have been the real symbol of the ALA, which is indeed close to this image, but with some important differences: A curved dagger dripping blood thrust into a star of David. Sources are Benjamin Balint and this other book, they both say the same. There is no mention to the circle, and the dagger is dripping blood.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC) At last, from the book "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War" by Ben Morris, chapter "Operations Yoav and Hiram", page 340, "The [Syrian] troops, well-dressed and well-equipped, ran hither and thither between the houses and in the alleyways and in the nearby fig groves, alone and in groups, and tried to fire back...Qawuqji’s troops fled in the direction of the Jermak...We captured two...armored vehicles taken from us in the Yehiam Convoy and now decorated with the symbol of the ALA, a bent dagger dripping blood, stuck in the heart of a Shield of David" --- Darwin Ahoy! 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Huldra: Please do not remove well-sourced information from this article. Please do not force this issue to become elevated into a discussion about sanctions against disruptive, partisan editors. Please do not censor facts in the service of blatant political bias. Thank you in advance. Ronreisman ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The following statements currently in the 'Arab Liberation Army' section must be sourced with reliable references:
In early March 1948, Qawuqji arrived in Palestine from Damascus at the head of several hundred Arab volunteers. He crossed the Allenby Bridge with his troops on March 6, 1948 and a day later he brought also some motorized troops into Palestine before the non-reacting British troops. The ALA's first and only major operation was to launch an attack on the settlement of Mishmar HaEmak in April 1948. The Haganah and Palmach counter-attacked and the ALA were routed. In October 1948 the last of the ALA forces were driven out of the Galilee in Operation Hiram and Qawuqji escaped to Lebanon. After the end of the war he moved to Syria and lived in Damascus.
Editors are reminded to properly source the statements they add to a Wikipedia article, and to NOT remove statements that *are* well-sourced. Thank you in advance for your cooperative and collegial behavior in the future. Ronreisman ( talk) 00:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I've started to document this in more detail. Unfortunately I do not have immediate access to al-Qawaqji's memoirs. It would be great if someone familiar with this work would add more referenced detail to this section. Ronreisman ( talk) 12:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
L&C is a source of quality but not of enough quality if other sources can be found on the same topic. Regarding the entry of ALA forces in Palestine in particular, Yoav Gelber provide all the details with accuracy. Pluto2012 ( talk) 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
L&C is, as Pluto2012 notes, a source of quality. There is no excuse for deleting direct quotes from them, and then claiming (without properly sourcing your statement) that there are better references for the same information. @Pluto2012 : I'm restoring the *direct quote* from L&C that you have deleted. Please do not simply vandalize the article again. If you think the wording should be changed, please explain why in this talk page and we'll work out a consensus. Please don't vandalize. Ronreisman ( talk) 02:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
O Jerusalem! is much more elaborate than most historical accounts on the subject. The authors spent three years interviewing, researching, and reading public documents in order to create an interesting, readable account of the birth of Israel and the lives and deaths of the countless, often nameless, people involved. This precise perspective gives justice to some of the most compelling factors of the conflict.
Pluto2012 is not willing any more to discuss with you both. I wonder if wp:uncivility ever reached such a level on wikipedia.
Yoav Gelber is a wp:rs source and whatever he thinks as a person, he remains an excellent historians.
L&C are excellent journalists and made a great job for "O Jerusalem" but, today they cannot be considered as a source of high enough standard given since British and Israelis archives were opened and the propaganda from both sides of the conflict decripted...
In any case, the testimony of a Nazi general (Felmy) that you want to use is not a reliable source. I cannot even understand it has to be explained why.
What I wrote that Gelber thinks about L&C is from my personal exchanges with him. If he commented what they wrote, it doesn't mean he considers they are reliable.
What Gelber writes about Pappé is hard but globally correct from my point of view. If Pappé was reliable before 2000, he lost any credit with his last book about the 'Ethnic Cleansing' not because the idea they would not have been any 'Ethnic Cleansing' (what Israeli teeagers consider to be the reason why to hate him) but because of the political manipulation he makes with history (reasons why scholars are disguted by his work.) I could check this myself in discussing with Pappé.
And Gelber never said anything bad on Benny Morris, who is calls Benny; this latter thanking Yoav in his book Birth... Revisited. And as far as I know, they are even friends.
Cheers,
Pluto2012 (
talk) 21:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As for their quote, we probably may find another source. Personally I do not care which mainstream RS we use, as long they are proper historians, unlike Pape, Shlaim etc. who have an agenda to promote. Ykantor ( talk) 14:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of taging Qawuqji with the Nazi tag is obvious. Anyway I wonder if it is worth mentionning here or not. To the question : "did he collaborate with Nazis ?", the answer is "yes". To the question : "did he fight under the Nazi flag ?", the answer is "no". I don't know what to do in that case but the best should be to find equivalent situations to keep the same rules everywhere. For exemple, would we add a "British tag" to Moshe Dayan ? Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This is primary source and it cannot be used if not supported by a secondary reliable source. That's well known and basic rule. Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There are, of course, much better and cogent criticisms of the book, e.g. Achcar, or Nicosia. None of these criticisms go so far as to falsely accuse the book of being propaganda, or of mis-using quotes out of context to completely misrepresent the work as being part of some nefarious conspiracy. The bottom line is that this book, written by tenured professors of Modern German History, is certainly *not* propaganda. All of the responsible critics respect Mallman, et al, as fellow academics with whom they may have some disagreements or find some shortomings. No responsible critic has questioned their qualifications or peer-review publications, etc. See: Klaus-Michael Mallmann for a brief review of his qualifications and expertise. Please Hudra, the next time you quote a sentence, please keep the representation in context. We'll all be more productive, and we'll avoid these unreasonable and unjustifiable 'undo' episodes that deprive the Wikipedia readers of access to factual information. Cheers. Ronreisman ( talk) 21:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)"1 The criticism I refer to suggests that the book is part of an Israeli propaganda movement. The truth is that the original title reflects the clear-headed analysis contained in the book of the relationship between the Muslim world (the Crescent) and the National Socialists (the Swastika). It describes how the common value of Jew-hating and anti-Zionism made Palestine a ripe prize and rallying point both strategically and politically for Islamists, Arab nationalists, and Nazis. In a personal communication, the editor for Enigma Books told me that “The title was picked by Enigma Books, not the translator; it means to indicate what would have happened if Palestine and the rest of North Africa had been conquered by the Germans.2 The book does paint the disastrous probable outcome of a 'Nazi Palestine,' but it is much more than that. It is a book about what did happen, not a fantasy. It makes clear that the outcome of a success of the Arab/Nazi coalition in WW II would have been genocide of the Jews, led by Germans and enforced by Arabs."
The Qawuqji memoirs that are linked in the article only begin coverage in the post-WWII period. Does anyone have access to Qawuqji's memoirs that cover the pre-1947 time-frame? Are any posted on the web? If not, does anyone have a valid reference? I'd like to email the Hoover Lib and ask them to get the relevant docs via interlib loan, etc. Are these memoirs translated into English (sorry, my Arabic is somewhere between atrocious and non-existent :-) ? Also: Just to check with @Pluto2012 : We all have a consensus that Qawuqji's memoirs are a valid source for Wiki articles, right? Just want to make sure we don't have another disagreement about it's admissibility of post-WWII memoirs. Ronreisman ( talk) 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There are two ways of "citing" something. One is to take it as a source of fact, and the other is to report what it says without judging it. The latter is what we are supposed to do with primary sources. So it is not against the rules to quote Qawuqji's memoirs (provided they are quoted from a reliable publication and not just taken off some random web page). However we have to cite it like "According to Qawuqji's memoirs..." or "Qawuqji wrote that...". We are not allowed to judge its veracity ourselves and just state as a fact something that appears there. Actually historians know that personal memoirs are among the least reliable sources. Zero talk 14:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The same thing can be said of the Felmy book. We can cite it as a claim of Felmy. But there is another issue here. Does anyone here actually have the book? Yes, I see the web page but that is not a reliable publisher and we don't know if the text of the book provided there matches the original. Maybe it has been edited. If the web page is the real source of these citations, they have to go. Unless we have the actual book we need to restrict ourselves to things from the book that are mentioned by reliable sources. Zero talk 14:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I question that Felmy's manuscript was "published by the US Army". I read that it was not written for publication and all the references I see are to archival document identifiers. Also what does "p. 13, by Gen. Haider" mean? It doesn't make sense. The words "active interest" are not in Haider's forward. It doesn't say "'active interest' and support of the military training of Arabs by the Nazis" either; I'm out of time but I believe that is misrepresenting the source. Felmy seems to mention Fawri as an obstacle, not a help. That's why it continues "Despite these misunderstandings...". Zero talk 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fawzi al-Qawuqji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fawzi al-Qawuqji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This (the archive to the source I just removed) is clearly marked as opinion. The author has no expertise in this topic, and he is referencing his own self-published book for the claim. It is not a reliable source. nableezy - 18:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
In response to:
(1) anything at all can be found by searching thousands of newspapers, (2) as Hazkani makes clear, ALA propaganda is full of al-Qawuqji; he was the leader so the relevance is obvious, (3) it is not true that the book quotes al-Q making genocidal threats (unlike Haganah propaganda), though he threatened the residents of one village (4) add direct assertion from Hazkani, who is an excellent source for this article and should be cited more.
1. This isn't "anything at all" found in a newspaper. It's a contemporaneous, firsthand news report on the ground in the region during the conflict from a perennial source in which the writer quoted something al-Q said. The other sources in the body all report secondhand and cannot be given priority over firsthand accounts.
2. During this period, there are numerous instances of Arab leadership having said phrases referring either to extermination or expulsion of Jews/Israelis, only for them to walk them back, recant, or deny them when they faced western or press scrutiny. That this quote does not appear in a propaganda archive means nothing - especially given the fact that he gave the quote to the press, and has never been suggested was a part of a propaganda programme. Conway reported it as a quote, he and Daily News are RS, and until evidence is presented otherwise, there is nothing present to undercut the reliability of the reporting.
3. Hazkani's bias and research thoroughness have been questioned to the point that he got into a public argument in Israeli media a few years back. If we are to include his assertion, we'll have to include the public rebuttal (by a competing newspaper) that his research is incomplete and he makes biased leading assertions on these points in the face of an abundance of evidence that cites otherwise.
I myself have found *dozens* of instances of contemporaneous, *direct* reporting in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s that confirm how often Arab leaders used this phrase and similar terminology (when convenient, re: the above reminder that there was plenty of walk-back by leaders when confronted with their own words). For Hazkani to claim that in "15 years of searching, during which I read hundreds of propaganda documents from 1947 to 1949, I encountered only one case in which an Arab leader mentioned 'sea' and 'Jews' in the same sentence", it merely says to me he was either looking in the wrong place, or wasn't thinking to use (or didn't have available to him) digital archives, which are replete with instances. Mistamystery ( talk) 17:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
If the Jews win after all, the "experts" will adapt themselves to the new situation as best they can. For the time being they still hope for Arab Legion victories, not because they "want to drive the Jews into the sea," but because they hope to bludgeon them into submission to some intricate paper "solution" of their own.' Even though the phrase is in quotes, it isn't given as a quote of someone. It is just a way of marking a stock phrase that was in the air at the time. Zero talk 09:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fawzi al-Qawuqji article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
you deleted my contribution:"On August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji threatened that, should the (U.N. partition) vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish" [1]."
your reason: "behaviour issue : wp:point ; content issue : wp:undue - Qawuqji said many things and there is no reason to focus on that one."
You have just being told:"if there is relevant and reliably sourced content, it may be entered into the article. If others claim it is WP:UNDUE because there are other points of view, then they will need to (and it should be very easy for them to) present reliable sources showing these other points of view. The article then incorporates these other sources and then all of the major points of view are then be presented. Claims that one reliable source's view is not representative without providing sources to show the existence of other views do not stand up".
It is not your first unjustified deletion, based on supposed POV. Please restore the deleted sentence, or I will have to complain about your conduct. Ykantor ( talk) 17:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
In: "Morris; 1948", al-Qawuqji is mentioned on pages 61, 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348. Of all those pages, "someone" has seen fit to quote (in extenso) p. 61, and only p. 61. Why? Because that is where you can find the most "belligerent" quote from Qawuqji. (..btw, the footnote is cited to an anon official from the "Jewish Agency": not necessarily an objective observer.) And even Morris´ own explanation on the background for the quote has been omitted.
(Also, the quote, from 1947, is now mention under ALA, which was formed in 1948, independently of Qawuqji. Alas, the article now gives a false impression that there is a direct link between the two: Qawuqji belligerent words, and the formation of ALA. This is simply false. ALA would have been formed, even if Qawuqji had never been born.)
There is one word for this, and that is "cherry-picking". (Or WP:UNDUE, do be more wikipedia formalistic). I would say how al-Qawuqji performed in the war would be far, far more relevant to his biography, than the above quote. But that is only partly mentioned in the article at present, and not sourced at all! Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
To Pluto: You continue to attack me personally. e.g. "Ykantor has nothing to add but will keep discussing to make lose time to everybody". I have asked you few times to stop personal attacks. This is a conduct issue and should be accordingly dealt with.
I repeat my first post:
you deleted my contribution:"On August 1947, Fawzi al-Qawuqji threatened that, should the (U.N. partition) vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish" [1]."
You have just being told:"if there is relevant and reliably sourced content, it may be entered into the article. If others claim it is WP:UNDUE because there are other points of view, then they will need to (and it should be very easy for them to) present reliable sources showing these other points of view. The article then incorporates these other sources and then all of the major points of view are then be presented. Claims that one reliable source's view is not representative without providing sources to show the existence of other views do not stand up".
It is not your first unjustified deletion, based on supposed POV(?). Please restore the deleted sentence, or I will have to complain about you. Ykantor ( talk) 11:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Recently Pluto 'undid' an edit that indicates Qawuqji's affiliation with Nazi Germany. Pluto's comment justifying this action is factually incorrect: "he took refuge there but he didn't fight for them or lead troops for Nazis." I have added some (not,by any means all) well-sourced documentation of Qawuqi's support for Nazi wartime efforts, including his unquestionable participation in he Wehrmacht 's central agency for all issues that affected the Arab world, known as Sonderstab F, which had been established as an outcome of Wehrmacht High Command Directive No. 32, and was commanded by General der Flieger Hellmuth Felmy.
Pluto's 'undo' may have been a 'good faith' edit, insofar as he may not have much familiarity with the subject matter. We can now reach consensus, however, that al-Qawuqji's affiliation with Nazi Germany is documented, well-sourced, and incontestable. If any editor has any disagreement or doubt of this fact, then the place to bring up these doubts is this talk page. Please do not 'undo' or vandalize this page by attempting to cover-up al-Qawuqji's affiliation with WWII Germany by censoring the facts.
I realize that many editors take issue with including facts that could be mis-used by partisan purpose, e.g. discrediting all anti-Zionists by over-emphasizing the role of Naziism in the careers of some anti-Zionist fighters. This is completely understandable, and the proper way to address these concerns is to provide more well-sourced contextual information to promote NPOV. It is not permissible, however, to simply remove documentation of facts because they reflect badly on political causes that certain editors support. The priority must be to present the facts well, and then let the readers decide how they will use the information. Ronreisman ( talk) 22:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Apparently I happen to have found as well what seems to have been the real symbol of the ALA, which is indeed close to this image, but with some important differences: A curved dagger dripping blood thrust into a star of David. Sources are Benjamin Balint and this other book, they both say the same. There is no mention to the circle, and the dagger is dripping blood.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC) At last, from the book "1948: The First Arab-Israeli War" by Ben Morris, chapter "Operations Yoav and Hiram", page 340, "The [Syrian] troops, well-dressed and well-equipped, ran hither and thither between the houses and in the alleyways and in the nearby fig groves, alone and in groups, and tried to fire back...Qawuqji’s troops fled in the direction of the Jermak...We captured two...armored vehicles taken from us in the Yehiam Convoy and now decorated with the symbol of the ALA, a bent dagger dripping blood, stuck in the heart of a Shield of David" --- Darwin Ahoy! 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Huldra: Please do not remove well-sourced information from this article. Please do not force this issue to become elevated into a discussion about sanctions against disruptive, partisan editors. Please do not censor facts in the service of blatant political bias. Thank you in advance. Ronreisman ( talk) 00:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The following statements currently in the 'Arab Liberation Army' section must be sourced with reliable references:
In early March 1948, Qawuqji arrived in Palestine from Damascus at the head of several hundred Arab volunteers. He crossed the Allenby Bridge with his troops on March 6, 1948 and a day later he brought also some motorized troops into Palestine before the non-reacting British troops. The ALA's first and only major operation was to launch an attack on the settlement of Mishmar HaEmak in April 1948. The Haganah and Palmach counter-attacked and the ALA were routed. In October 1948 the last of the ALA forces were driven out of the Galilee in Operation Hiram and Qawuqji escaped to Lebanon. After the end of the war he moved to Syria and lived in Damascus.
Editors are reminded to properly source the statements they add to a Wikipedia article, and to NOT remove statements that *are* well-sourced. Thank you in advance for your cooperative and collegial behavior in the future. Ronreisman ( talk) 00:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I've started to document this in more detail. Unfortunately I do not have immediate access to al-Qawaqji's memoirs. It would be great if someone familiar with this work would add more referenced detail to this section. Ronreisman ( talk) 12:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
L&C is a source of quality but not of enough quality if other sources can be found on the same topic. Regarding the entry of ALA forces in Palestine in particular, Yoav Gelber provide all the details with accuracy. Pluto2012 ( talk) 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
L&C is, as Pluto2012 notes, a source of quality. There is no excuse for deleting direct quotes from them, and then claiming (without properly sourcing your statement) that there are better references for the same information. @Pluto2012 : I'm restoring the *direct quote* from L&C that you have deleted. Please do not simply vandalize the article again. If you think the wording should be changed, please explain why in this talk page and we'll work out a consensus. Please don't vandalize. Ronreisman ( talk) 02:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
O Jerusalem! is much more elaborate than most historical accounts on the subject. The authors spent three years interviewing, researching, and reading public documents in order to create an interesting, readable account of the birth of Israel and the lives and deaths of the countless, often nameless, people involved. This precise perspective gives justice to some of the most compelling factors of the conflict.
Pluto2012 is not willing any more to discuss with you both. I wonder if wp:uncivility ever reached such a level on wikipedia.
Yoav Gelber is a wp:rs source and whatever he thinks as a person, he remains an excellent historians.
L&C are excellent journalists and made a great job for "O Jerusalem" but, today they cannot be considered as a source of high enough standard given since British and Israelis archives were opened and the propaganda from both sides of the conflict decripted...
In any case, the testimony of a Nazi general (Felmy) that you want to use is not a reliable source. I cannot even understand it has to be explained why.
What I wrote that Gelber thinks about L&C is from my personal exchanges with him. If he commented what they wrote, it doesn't mean he considers they are reliable.
What Gelber writes about Pappé is hard but globally correct from my point of view. If Pappé was reliable before 2000, he lost any credit with his last book about the 'Ethnic Cleansing' not because the idea they would not have been any 'Ethnic Cleansing' (what Israeli teeagers consider to be the reason why to hate him) but because of the political manipulation he makes with history (reasons why scholars are disguted by his work.) I could check this myself in discussing with Pappé.
And Gelber never said anything bad on Benny Morris, who is calls Benny; this latter thanking Yoav in his book Birth... Revisited. And as far as I know, they are even friends.
Cheers,
Pluto2012 (
talk) 21:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As for their quote, we probably may find another source. Personally I do not care which mainstream RS we use, as long they are proper historians, unlike Pape, Shlaim etc. who have an agenda to promote. Ykantor ( talk) 14:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The purpose of taging Qawuqji with the Nazi tag is obvious. Anyway I wonder if it is worth mentionning here or not. To the question : "did he collaborate with Nazis ?", the answer is "yes". To the question : "did he fight under the Nazi flag ?", the answer is "no". I don't know what to do in that case but the best should be to find equivalent situations to keep the same rules everywhere. For exemple, would we add a "British tag" to Moshe Dayan ? Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This is primary source and it cannot be used if not supported by a secondary reliable source. That's well known and basic rule. Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Pluto2012 ( talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
There are, of course, much better and cogent criticisms of the book, e.g. Achcar, or Nicosia. None of these criticisms go so far as to falsely accuse the book of being propaganda, or of mis-using quotes out of context to completely misrepresent the work as being part of some nefarious conspiracy. The bottom line is that this book, written by tenured professors of Modern German History, is certainly *not* propaganda. All of the responsible critics respect Mallman, et al, as fellow academics with whom they may have some disagreements or find some shortomings. No responsible critic has questioned their qualifications or peer-review publications, etc. See: Klaus-Michael Mallmann for a brief review of his qualifications and expertise. Please Hudra, the next time you quote a sentence, please keep the representation in context. We'll all be more productive, and we'll avoid these unreasonable and unjustifiable 'undo' episodes that deprive the Wikipedia readers of access to factual information. Cheers. Ronreisman ( talk) 21:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)"1 The criticism I refer to suggests that the book is part of an Israeli propaganda movement. The truth is that the original title reflects the clear-headed analysis contained in the book of the relationship between the Muslim world (the Crescent) and the National Socialists (the Swastika). It describes how the common value of Jew-hating and anti-Zionism made Palestine a ripe prize and rallying point both strategically and politically for Islamists, Arab nationalists, and Nazis. In a personal communication, the editor for Enigma Books told me that “The title was picked by Enigma Books, not the translator; it means to indicate what would have happened if Palestine and the rest of North Africa had been conquered by the Germans.2 The book does paint the disastrous probable outcome of a 'Nazi Palestine,' but it is much more than that. It is a book about what did happen, not a fantasy. It makes clear that the outcome of a success of the Arab/Nazi coalition in WW II would have been genocide of the Jews, led by Germans and enforced by Arabs."
The Qawuqji memoirs that are linked in the article only begin coverage in the post-WWII period. Does anyone have access to Qawuqji's memoirs that cover the pre-1947 time-frame? Are any posted on the web? If not, does anyone have a valid reference? I'd like to email the Hoover Lib and ask them to get the relevant docs via interlib loan, etc. Are these memoirs translated into English (sorry, my Arabic is somewhere between atrocious and non-existent :-) ? Also: Just to check with @Pluto2012 : We all have a consensus that Qawuqji's memoirs are a valid source for Wiki articles, right? Just want to make sure we don't have another disagreement about it's admissibility of post-WWII memoirs. Ronreisman ( talk) 15:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There are two ways of "citing" something. One is to take it as a source of fact, and the other is to report what it says without judging it. The latter is what we are supposed to do with primary sources. So it is not against the rules to quote Qawuqji's memoirs (provided they are quoted from a reliable publication and not just taken off some random web page). However we have to cite it like "According to Qawuqji's memoirs..." or "Qawuqji wrote that...". We are not allowed to judge its veracity ourselves and just state as a fact something that appears there. Actually historians know that personal memoirs are among the least reliable sources. Zero talk 14:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The same thing can be said of the Felmy book. We can cite it as a claim of Felmy. But there is another issue here. Does anyone here actually have the book? Yes, I see the web page but that is not a reliable publisher and we don't know if the text of the book provided there matches the original. Maybe it has been edited. If the web page is the real source of these citations, they have to go. Unless we have the actual book we need to restrict ourselves to things from the book that are mentioned by reliable sources. Zero talk 14:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I question that Felmy's manuscript was "published by the US Army". I read that it was not written for publication and all the references I see are to archival document identifiers. Also what does "p. 13, by Gen. Haider" mean? It doesn't make sense. The words "active interest" are not in Haider's forward. It doesn't say "'active interest' and support of the military training of Arabs by the Nazis" either; I'm out of time but I believe that is misrepresenting the source. Felmy seems to mention Fawri as an obstacle, not a help. That's why it continues "Despite these misunderstandings...". Zero talk 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fawzi al-Qawuqji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fawzi al-Qawuqji. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This (the archive to the source I just removed) is clearly marked as opinion. The author has no expertise in this topic, and he is referencing his own self-published book for the claim. It is not a reliable source. nableezy - 18:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
In response to:
(1) anything at all can be found by searching thousands of newspapers, (2) as Hazkani makes clear, ALA propaganda is full of al-Qawuqji; he was the leader so the relevance is obvious, (3) it is not true that the book quotes al-Q making genocidal threats (unlike Haganah propaganda), though he threatened the residents of one village (4) add direct assertion from Hazkani, who is an excellent source for this article and should be cited more.
1. This isn't "anything at all" found in a newspaper. It's a contemporaneous, firsthand news report on the ground in the region during the conflict from a perennial source in which the writer quoted something al-Q said. The other sources in the body all report secondhand and cannot be given priority over firsthand accounts.
2. During this period, there are numerous instances of Arab leadership having said phrases referring either to extermination or expulsion of Jews/Israelis, only for them to walk them back, recant, or deny them when they faced western or press scrutiny. That this quote does not appear in a propaganda archive means nothing - especially given the fact that he gave the quote to the press, and has never been suggested was a part of a propaganda programme. Conway reported it as a quote, he and Daily News are RS, and until evidence is presented otherwise, there is nothing present to undercut the reliability of the reporting.
3. Hazkani's bias and research thoroughness have been questioned to the point that he got into a public argument in Israeli media a few years back. If we are to include his assertion, we'll have to include the public rebuttal (by a competing newspaper) that his research is incomplete and he makes biased leading assertions on these points in the face of an abundance of evidence that cites otherwise.
I myself have found *dozens* of instances of contemporaneous, *direct* reporting in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s that confirm how often Arab leaders used this phrase and similar terminology (when convenient, re: the above reminder that there was plenty of walk-back by leaders when confronted with their own words). For Hazkani to claim that in "15 years of searching, during which I read hundreds of propaganda documents from 1947 to 1949, I encountered only one case in which an Arab leader mentioned 'sea' and 'Jews' in the same sentence", it merely says to me he was either looking in the wrong place, or wasn't thinking to use (or didn't have available to him) digital archives, which are replete with instances. Mistamystery ( talk) 17:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
If the Jews win after all, the "experts" will adapt themselves to the new situation as best they can. For the time being they still hope for Arab Legion victories, not because they "want to drive the Jews into the sea," but because they hope to bludgeon them into submission to some intricate paper "solution" of their own.' Even though the phrase is in quotes, it isn't given as a quote of someone. It is just a way of marking a stock phrase that was in the air at the time. Zero talk 09:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)